Fiscal impact reports (FIRs) are prepared by the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) for standing finance

committees of the NM Legislature. The LFC does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of these reports

if they are used for other purposes.

Current FIRs (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) are a vailable on the NM Legislative Website (legis.state.nm.us).

Adobe PDF versions include all attachments, whereas HTML versions may not. Previously issued FIRs and

attachments may be obtained from the LFC in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.

F I S C A L I M P A C T R E P O R T

SPONSOR Rehm

ORIGINAL DATE

LAST UPDATED

2/1/07

HB 479

SHORT TITLE

Crime of Consumption of Controlled Substance

SB

ANALYST C. Sanchez

APPROPRIATION (dollars in thousands)

Appropriation

Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY07

FY08

NFI

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

LFC Files

Responses Received From

Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC)

Corrections Department (CD)

Department of Health (DOH)

SUMMARY

Synopsis of Bill

House Bill 479 amends the crime of possession of a controlled substance to recognize a positive

test by blood, urine or other medical test is prima facie evidence of knowing and intentional drug

possession.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

There will be a minimal administrative cost for statewide update, distribution and documentation

of statutory changes. Any additional fiscal impact on the judiciary would be proportional to the

enforcement of this law and commenced prosecutions. New laws, amendments to existing laws

and new hearings have the potential to increase caseloads in the courts, thus requiring additional

resources to handle the increase.

House Bill 479 – Page

2

SIGNIFICANT ISSUES

The New Mexico Supreme Court has held that a positive drug test is insufficient evidence to

prove the crime of possession of a controlled substance, as that crime is currently defined. State

v. McCoy, 116 N.M. 491, 496 (1993), reversed on other grounds, State v. Hodge, 118 N.M. 410

(1994). See also State v. Twayne H., 123 N.M. 42, 47 (Ct. App.), cert. denied, 123 N.M. 83

(1997). HB 479 appears in part intended to address these holdings by making a positive drug test

by urine, blood or other medical test prima facie evidence of knowing possession of a controlled

substance.

PERFORMANCE IMPLICATIONS

House Bill 479 would have an impact on court performance by increasing challenges to the new

statutory language.

ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS

Any additional cost of this incurred in the defense of this crime would be absorbed in the

ordinary course of business by courts and corrections.

CONFLICT, DUPLICATION, COMPANIONSHIP, RELATIONSHIP

House Bill 479 relates to:

.

HB 403, relating to criminal law, which would modify the crime of driving under the

influence of intoxicating liquor to allow three hours for the administration of a chemical

test to determine alcohol concentration, provide for the admissibility of chemical tests

taken more than three hours after driving, and reconcile multiple amendments to the same

section of law in laws 2005; declares an emergency.

.

HB 420, relating to driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs, which

would modify the crime of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor to allow

three hours for the administration of a chemical test to determine alcohol concentration,

and reconcile multiple amendments to the same section of law in laws 2005.

.

HB 478, relating to criminal law, which would modify the crime of driving under the

influence of intoxicating liquor to allow three hours for the administration of a chemical

test to determine alcohol concentration, create a per se violation for driving under the

influence of certain controlled substances, and reconcile multiple amendments to the

same section of law in laws 2005.

OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES

The case of State v. Hodge, 118 N.M. 410, 882 P.2d 1, (1994), deals with similar subject matter.

In Hodge, the Supreme Court vacated the defendants’ convictions on the charge of possession of

a controlled substance where the only evidence of possession was a urinalysis that showed

cocaine in the defendants’ systems. “[T]he mere presence of drugs in the urine or bloodstream

does not constitute possession." State v. McCoy, 116 N.M. 491, 497, 864 P.2d 307,

313 (App.1993); overruled on other grounds, State v. Hodge, 118 N.M. 410, 882 P.2d 1 (1994).

House Bill 479 – Page

3

WHAT WILL BE THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ENACTING THIS BILL

A positive drug test will remain only some evidence of knowing drug possession, requiring

corroboration by other evidence, instead of providing prima facie evidence that, if unchallenged,

can be sufficient to support a criminal conviction.

CS/csd